Tactile stimulations and wheel rotation responses: toward augmented lane departure warning systems

When an on-board system detects a drift of a vehicle to the left or to the right, in what way should the information be delivered to the driver? Car manufacturers have so far neglected relevant results from Experimental Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience. Here we show that this situation possibly led to the sub-optimal design of a lane departure warning system (AFIL, PSA Peugeot Citroën) implemented in commercially available automobile vehicles. Twenty participants performed a two-choice reaction time task in which they were to respond by clockwise or counter-clockwise wheel-rotations to tactile stimulations of their left or right wrist. They performed poorer when responding counter-clockwise to the right vibration and clockwise to the left vibration (incompatible mapping) than when responding according to the reverse (compatible) mapping. This suggests that AFIL implements the worse (incompatible) mapping for the operators. This effect depended on initial practice with the interface. The present research illustrates how basic approaches in Cognitive Science may benefit to Human Factors Engineering and ultimately improve man-machine interfaces and show how initial learning can affect interference effects.

[1]  M Akamatsu,et al.  Please Scroll down for Article Ergonomics a Comparison of Tactile, Auditory, and Visual Feedback in a Pointing Task Using a Mouse-type Device , 2022 .

[2]  R. Ratcliff Group reaction time distributions and an analysis of distribution statistics. , 1979, Psychological bulletin.

[3]  R. Proctor,et al.  Naïve and experienced judgments of stimuluS—Response compatibility: implications for interface design , 2003, Ergonomics.

[4]  Wolfgang Prinz,et al.  Compensation for and adaptation to changes in the environment , 2005, Experimental Brain Research.

[5]  Robert W. Proctor,et al.  Mixing location-relevant and irrelevant tasks: Spatial compatibility effects eliminated by stimuli that share the same spatial codes , 2003 .

[6]  B Hommel,et al.  The cognitive representation of action: Automatic integration of perceived action effects , 1996, Psychological research.

[7]  S. Kitazawa,et al.  Reversal of subjective temporal order due to arm crossing , 2001, Nature Neuroscience.

[8]  W W Wierwille,et al.  Driver Steering Reaction Time to Abrupt-Onset Crosswinds, as Measured In a Moving-Base Driving Simulator , 1983, Human factors.

[9]  P. Barber,et al.  The relevance of salience: Towards an activational account of irrelevant stimulus-response compatibility effects , 1997 .

[10]  G. Aschersleben,et al.  The Theory of Event Coding (TEC): a framework for perception and action planning. , 2001, The Behavioral and brain sciences.

[11]  Wilfried Kunde,et al.  The impact of anticipated action effects on action planning. , 2002, Acta psychologica.

[12]  Jean-Michel Hoc,et al.  Lateral Control Assistance for Car Drivers: A Comparison of Motor Priming and Warning Systems , 2007, Hum. Factors.

[13]  Errol R Hoffmann,et al.  Naïve judgements of stimulus–response compatibility , 2010, Ergonomics.

[14]  Jean-Michel Hoc,et al.  Objective and subjective evaluation of motor priming and warning systems applied to lateral control assistance. , 2010, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[15]  Stephen J. Payne,et al.  Naive Judgments of Stimulus-Response Compatibility , 1995, Hum. Factors.

[16]  Claire F. Michaels,et al.  Stimulus-response compatibility versus Information-Action compatibility , 1997 .

[17]  Robert W Proctor,et al.  Spatial Compatibility Effects With Unimanual and Bimanual Wheel-Rotation Responses: An Homage to Guiard (1983) , 2013, Journal of motor behavior.

[18]  Addie Dutta,et al.  Persistence of stimulus-response compatibility effects with extended practice. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[19]  Y. Guiard,et al.  Principles of response determination: The list-rule model of SR compatibility , 1990 .

[20]  F. Beruscha,et al.  Haptic Warning Signals at the Steering Wheel: A Literature Survey Regarding Lane Departure Warning Systems (Short Paper) , 2011 .

[21]  W W Wierwille,et al.  The Effect of Repeated Emergency Response Trials on Performance during Extended-Duration Simulated Driving , 1982, Human factors.

[22]  C Sutter,et al.  Sensumotor transformation of input devices and the impact on practice and task difficulty , 2007, Ergonomics.

[23]  B. Hommel Action control according to TEC (theory of event coding) , 2009, Psychological research.

[24]  Wilfried Kunde,et al.  Does a tool eliminate spatial compatibility effects? , 2008 .

[25]  A. Osman,et al.  Dimensional overlap: cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility--a model and taxonomy. , 1990, Psychological review.

[26]  Jacob S Nteere,et al.  Information Capacity of the Human Motor system , 1982 .

[27]  Cristy Ho,et al.  Tactile and Multisensory Spatial Warning Signals for Drivers , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Haptics.

[28]  Hong Z. Tan,et al.  To Go or Not to Go: Stimulus-Response Compatibility for Tactile and Auditory Pedestrian Collision Warnings , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Haptics.

[29]  Robert L. Mason,et al.  Statistical Principles in Experimental Design , 2003 .

[30]  W W Wierwille,et al.  Effects of Visual Display and Motion System Delays on Operator Performance and Uneasiness in a Driving Simulator , 1988, Human factors.

[31]  M. Zorzi,et al.  The role of long-term-memory and short-term-memory links in the Simon effect. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[32]  R. L. Deininger,et al.  S-R compatibility: correspondence among paired elements within stimulus and response codes. , 1954, Journal of experimental psychology.

[33]  B. J. Winer Statistical Principles in Experimental Design , 1992 .

[34]  S Kornblum,et al.  Neuronal correlates of sensorimotor association in stimulus-response compatibility. , 1997, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[35]  Klaus Augsburg,et al.  DO DRIVERS STEER TOWARD OR AWAY FROM LATERAL DIRECTIONAL VIBRATIONS AT THE STEERING WHEEL ? , 2010 .

[36]  Robert W Proctor,et al.  Stimulus-response compatibility with wheel-rotation responses: Will an incompatible response coding be used when a compatible coding is possible? , 2004, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[37]  Robert W. Proctor,et al.  Stimulus-Response Compatibility: An Integrated Perspective , 1990 .

[38]  B. Hommel Inverting the Simon effect intention: Determinants of direction and extent of effects of irrelevant spatial information. , 1993 .

[39]  Y. Guiard,et al.  The lateral coding of rotations: a study of the simon effect with wheel-rotation responses. , 1983, Journal of motor behavior.

[40]  P. Fitts The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. , 1954, Journal of experimental psychology.

[41]  T Hasbroucq,et al.  The chronometry of single neuron activity: testing discrete and continuous models of information processing. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[42]  J. Brebner S-R compatibility and changes in RT with practice , 1973 .

[43]  W. Kunde,et al.  Response-effect compatibility in manual choice reaction tasks. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.